Light Rail Boom

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Indeed but the headline of the article is about a plan to connect Oklahoma City with surrounding towns and cities. It explicitly says the plan is to reach beyond the boundaries of Oklahoma City.
Thus, Boston, Portland, and Detroit are significantly bigger metropolitan areas and should not be used as a comparison.

All true. I also suggested there would be exceptions to that general rule of thumb. OKC bus ridership is so small that I agreed with someone else that light rail was too much. If anything is built by OKC to Norman, Midwest City, or Guthrie, expect commuter rail lines mostly along existing freight rail corridors. One or two trains in the morning and afternoon rush is all I would expect. If any high frequency routes are built, OKC would be better off building BRT lines within the city. But that is just my opinion.

It is extremely difficult to suggest building high frequency rail lines when public transit ridership city wide is around 10K a day. Golly, even most high frequency rail lines (even commuter lines) expect growing to more ridership than 10K a day.

But, OKC ridership could rise significantly with the introduction of the streetcar lines near downtown. It would be interesting to see by how much.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Indeed but the headline of the article is about a plan to connect Oklahoma City with surrounding towns and cities. It explicitly says the plan is to reach beyond the boundaries of Oklahoma City.

Thus, Boston, Portland, and Detroit are significantly bigger metropolitan areas and should not be used as a comparison.

This is spot on. If we go by that metric. St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland shouldn't have rail transit because their about half the size of OKC,, but their metropolitan areas are twice as big and they have way more old school urban neighborhoods to support that type of investment. Honestly, I don't think rail transit is justifiable in metropolitan areas with less than 2 million people and even for metros over 2 million they need to have enough traditional urbanism to make it even worth the investment.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by goat314

This is spot on. If we go by that metric. St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland shouldn't have rail transit because their about half the size of OKC,, but their metropolitan areas are twice as big and they have way more old school urban neighborhoods to support that type of investment. Honestly, I don't think rail transit is justifiable in metropolitan areas with less than 2 million people and even for metros over 2 million they need to have enough traditional urbanism to make it even worth the investment.

In Canada, we might want to adjust that minimum to 500,000. At present, 4 cities under 1.5 million have rail transit, with another proposed. Some of those cities were not much more than 500,000 when rail transit was first introduced.

[Doady]

Not only do those Canadian cities have a population of under 2 million people, they never had much "traditional urbanism" either. Calgary only had a population of 129k in 1951, and with 314k boardings per weekday in 2019, its CTrain has the highest ridership of all modern light rail systems in either US or Canada, by far.

Here in Mississauga, Ontario, a post-war suburb of Toronto, a billion dollar light rail line is under construction, along a corridor with no "traditional urbanism", with no connection at all to the City of Toronto or any Toronto Transit Commission routes. Just buses being overcrowded is enough for rail expansion. Just get people on the buses. Las Vegas is one of the best candidates in the US for a new light rail system, despite its lack of "traditional urbanism". If a city can fill 12m or 18m long buses, then it will have a chance to fill 60m or 90m long trains, simple as that. You can see it in the successes of Portland and Seattle, light rail systems that have plenty of bus connections.

Don't look at the overall population or the overall amount of "traditional urbanity", just look at the overall ridership, and that will tell you if light rail is a good idea. Las Vegas, Honolulu, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore, these are systems with over 60 million boardings annually, but little or no rail. Those are the places that should be building new rail lines.

[202_Cyclist]

WA: Getting There: Can Spokane's light rail effort be revived?


Spokesman-Review
Mon., Aug. 16, 2021
By Ted McDermott


Image courtesy of the Spokesman-Review.

"When Dick Raymond walked into the first meeting about the possibility of light rail in Spokane, he was, like many, more than a little skeptical.

“I literally asked, ‘Why are we doing this?’ ” he said on Friday. “Because I thought it was a –”

Raymond was searching for a word, and his fellow members of the Inland Empire Rail Transit Association were happy to help him out.

“Boondoggle,” they agreed.

But that was more than two decades ago, in 2000, soon after the Spokane Transit Authority and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council created a light rail steering committee. That panel began considering the design and feasibility of a form of transit that was already well established in Portland and taking shape in Seattle..."

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...-effort-be-re/

[mhays]

Here's a great flyover of Tacoma's Hilltop Link Light Rail extension with much of the construction complete. (It's a streetcar really.)

This basically creates a switchback up a very big hill, going through some of Tacoma's most urban areas along the way. It starts at the north end of Downtown where the current line terminates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzPl4mzmxO8

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

WA: Getting There: Can Spokane's light rail effort be revived?


Spokesman-Review
Mon., Aug. 16, 2021
By Ted McDermott


Image courtesy of the Spokesman-Review.

"When Dick Raymond walked into the first meeting about the possibility of light rail in Spokane, he was, like many, more than a little skeptical.

“I literally asked, ‘Why are we doing this?’ ” he said on Friday. “Because I thought it was a –”

Raymond was searching for a word, and his fellow members of the Inland Empire Rail Transit Association were happy to help him out.

“Boondoggle,” they agreed.

But that was more than two decades ago, in 2000, soon after the Spokane Transit Authority and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council created a light rail steering committee. That panel began considering the design and feasibility of a form of transit that was already well established in Portland and taking shape in Seattle..."

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...-effort-be-re/

Interesting that the route doesn't have a stop at Gonzaga University at Hamilton that would have been a difference maker in terms of support.

[mhays]

That would mean two river crossings. There seems to be a good pedestrian connection though. At the same spot, it's closer to another college campus with satellites of WSU and UW.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

[B]WA: Getting There: Can Spokane's light rail effort be revived?
But that was more than two decades ago, in 2000, soon after the Spokane Transit Authority and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council created a light rail steering committee.
:While voters defeated an advisory vote on the plan in 2006, a volunteer group has continued to advocate for it as congestion increased.:

What is an advisory vote, was it a referendum?
How about holding another referendum and let the voters who will ultimately pay for it decide?

Is there a bus line running adjacent to this light rail line proposal, and what is its daily ridership data?

It is difficult to suggest if this will be a boondoggle or not without answers to valid questions.

That is why feasibility and environmental impact studies are performed. No studies = no light rail line.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by electricron

Is there a bus line running adjacent to this light rail line proposal, and what is its daily ridership data?

It is difficult to suggest if this will be a boondoggle or not without answers to valid questions.

Even the supporters admitted in the article that the train would only have 3500 boardings per day in 2025, and the estimated cost was already $263M in 2006.

That is why feasibility and environmental impact studies are performed. No studies = no light rail line.

They spent upwards of $9M on studies, they would have had a much better return buying a few more buses and operated them for the last 15 years with that money.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Even the supporters admitted in the article that the train would only have 3500 boardings per day in 2025, and the estimated cost was already $263M in 2006.
They spent upwards of $9M on studies, they would have had a much better return buying a few more buses and operated them for the last 15 years with that money.

You are probably correct. But even expanding bus services today require environmental studies. Got to place the bus stops in the politically correct locations. buy the correct sized buses, and the correct power plants for the buses as well.
You just can not get away from environmental studies unless you are replacing like with like.

[M II A II R II K]

VTA bets big on housing in Santa Clara County

https://sanjosespotlight.com/silicon...t-development/

.....

- Earlier this month, VTA announced several significant updates about housing projects being built on agency-owned land, also known as transit-oriented developments (TODs). On March 9, California invested $29 million to build a 569-unit housing project near Tamien Station in San Jose. A few days prior, VTA’s board of directors agreed to seek a developer to build a housing project near Winchester Station in Campbell with up to 105 residential spaces. --- By leasing surplus land near light rail stations to private developers or government housing agencies, VTA hopes to collect steady revenue from leases and new riders. The transportation agency sees this as a strategy to address the regional housing shortage and its own financial problems. --- “Sustainable sources of revenue, such as income from transit-oriented developments, really creates a long-term stable revenue source that can be utilized for increasing and improving services,” Jessie O’Malley Solis, VTA’s project manager for these developments, told San José Spotlight.

.....

[mhays]

Big news in the Seattle area: The state legislature has passed a law allowing sections of the Sound Transit district to vote for additional money to support better and faster construction of our $54b program and additional future plans.

This is crucial because revenues have lagged (COVID mostly) and projected costs have risen substantially. Plus, we can be more aggressive about expansion.

We're in the EIS process for extensions to Ballard and West Seattle, all within city limits. Without new money, we'd be headed toward cheap options vs. better ones, including for a third rail tunnel through Downtown. The new funding will change that. It'll also speed the timeline.

Sound Transit will have a process to set up the a special district, which can be based on the current subarea or just the city of Seattle. I don't know how long that'll take. Then we just need a majority vote, which will be easy.

Here's the bill: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?B...alse&Year=2021

[Doady]

With ridership down, it is good time to build major rail projects. The construction won't disrupt commutes so much. Less car traffic too.

I think places like San Jose/Santa Clara make a mistake making "TOD" so official, designating particular developments as "TOD" and others are not. Higher density, pedestrian walkways or street grids to increase permeability and reduce walking distances to stations and stops, those are all TOD measures, and they should be promoting that everywhere. Even for individual projects, "TOD" is not either/or but how much.

And waiting for rail before finally think about making development more transit-oriented id way too late. Even before the pandemic, despite it's big light rail system, the ridership of VTA was declining continuously for many years.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by mhays

Without new money, we'd be headed toward cheap options vs. better ones, including for a third rail tunnel through Downtown.

A third rail tunnel? There's the current one and the additional tunnel planned for ST3. I hadn't seen discussion of a third tunnel. Unless this involves creating a subway for the #8 bus route that I seem to recall seeing mentioned at various points?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

A third rail tunnel? There's the current one and the additional tunnel planned for ST3. I hadn't seen discussion of a third tunnel. Unless this involves creating a subway for the #8 bus route that I seem to recall seeing mentioned at various points?

There is a freight railroad tunnel that was built around 1900 and is used (I think) by commuter trains.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

A third rail tunnel? There's the current one and the additional tunnel planned for ST3. I hadn't seen discussion of a third tunnel. Unless this involves creating a subway for the #8 bus route that I seem to recall seeing mentioned at various points?

I wish we'd make that a tunnel! I live a block from the upper left part. But the low/high elevation separation would make it implausible unless we went aerial west of I-5.

The second tunnel is owned by Burlington Northern and currently houses Amtrak, commuter rail, and freight. It's over a century old. It's a gray line on the map, coming from the waterfront in the north. The central mile is a tunnel, from roughly the Pike Place Market to King Street Station.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

There is a freight railroad tunnel that was built around 1900 and is used (I think) by commuter trains.

Ah ok, that one. I knew it existed but was only thinking of Link.

If improving the heavy rail tunnel is in conjunction with actually providing worthwhile regional rail service (bi-directional & frequent) and better Amtrak service, then hopefully better funding can make it happen sooner and to a higher quality! Though if indeed the 3rd rail tunnel mhays mentioned is the heavy rail tunnel, the fact it would have a regional impact argues for regional funding rather than asking Seattle voters to pay additional taxes that would be of benefit to riders in further out areas such as up in Edmonds or south in Puyallup. Perhaps better for Seattle taxpayers to have their money focus on improving ST within their city (station locations in Ballard, West Seattle, downtown tunnel, etc.).

[mhays]

Regional funding will support the Downtown tunnel. But Sound Transit might be leaning toward cheap options due to funding issues, and the new money would change that.

Subarea equity is a key. Sound Transit is broken into a handful of areas that each need to receive value commensurate with taxes raised. This allows extra spending to provide a core system the outer areas will benefit from, but it won't pay for the quality/functionality the core city wants. The new money can bridge the gap.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by mhays

Regional funding will support the Downtown tunnel. But Sound Transit might be leaning toward cheap options due to funding issues, and the new money would change that.

Subarea equity is a key. Sound Transit is broken into a handful of areas that each need to receive value commensurate with taxes raised. This allows extra spending to provide a core system the outer areas will benefit from, but it won't pay for the quality/functionality the core city wants. The new money can bridge the gap.

I'll be anxious to see what ST comes up with for these special taxing district projects and how soon they'll get it on the ballot. Anything that helps speed up construction sounds great to me! Presumably they'll try to ensure there's something at least for Seattle on the ballot for 2024 to take advantage of typically higher turnout during Presidential elections?